Web Lance

Mike Grafton wants to get rid of the disruptor and photon torpedo for Tholian X2 ships, replacing them with web casters even on small ships. I don't really like this idea because I think it makes the web caster less "special" if deployed in large numbers. In THIS galaxy it should be a rare item. Instead, assume the ability to create web at distance is what makes a web caster so hard to produce. But a weapon that functions as a direct-fire-only version of the web caster (no web creation function) is easier. For X2, the Tholians make these "web lances" the standard heavy weapons for their Destroyers (their frigates or patrol corvettes are still "phaser boats") while cruisers use some combination of web lances and true web casters.

SVC IS GOOD WITH THIS IF IT HAS PLAYER SUPPORT.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 07:44 am: Edit

X2 ships never break down from an HET unless it is within 8 impulses of a previous HET. Nimble X2 ships never break down from a HET, period. But a secomd HET within 8 impulses of the previous one costs double the power.

SVC IS OKAY WITH THIS IF IT HAS PLAYER SUPPORT.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 09:32 am: Edit

Phaser-1s on X1-ships can already use rapid-pulse (fire as two phaser-3s) against seeking weapons, fighters, and PFs under (XE2.43). This is tied to the "X-Aegis" system which X1-ships possess under (XD13.0).

However, since the X-Aegis for X1-ships is "limited Aegis" (two shots), perhaps the X-Aegis on X2-ships could be brought up to "full Aegis" (four shots) levels?

SVC IS OKAY WITH THIS ONE.

So far as attrition units go, I'd imagine the Hydrans deploying some sort of "Stinger-X2", and possibly programming their simulators to account for the Borak considering a more advanced version of their Hunter-Killer fighters. But I wouldn't be in a hurry to see other Alpha Octant empires follow the same path.

SVC INTEND THE HYDRANS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF FIGHETER.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 09:57 am: Edit

I was just going to offer a suggestion, but Alan beat me to it with "Upgraded Phasers".


Garth L. Getgen

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 10:15 am: Edit

Use the 200/50 rule, but don't make it "on" by default. If an X2 ship wants the double damage vs non-x, make it need an extra charging cost per weapon associated with this. If an X2 ships wants the extra protection vs non-x make it a special type of shield reinforcement paid per shield arc. X2 ships should have plenty of power, but should not have enough to supercharge every weapon and protect every shield arc. They should have to make decisions on which weapons to boost and which shields to boost. This keeps interesting EA decisions in play, and keeps maneuver in play.

SVC DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS, BUT IF THERE IS MAJOR PLAYER SUPPORT (AT LEAST TEN DIFFERENT PLAYERS) IT MIGHT BE RECONSIDERED.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 11:14 am: Edit

How about a "Super Maneuver" which would be paid for like a "HET" but would allows an X2 ship to make a lower maneuver bracket direction change once a turn. Say based on the Speed the ship was supposed to move forward four hexes and then could turn 60 degrees but could use the "Super Maneuver" and turn 60 degrees after only moving forward three hexes.

SVC CAN GO WITH THIS.

By Jay Gustason (Jay20) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Can’t wait for the X2 space monsters

By Steve Stewart (Stevestewart) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Sort of like 50/200, but if a non-X ship fires at an X2 ship with shield reinforcement, could the reinforcement effect be greater against the non-X ship? Not saying this is the right number, but specific reinforcement might have a single point of reinforcement absorb 3 points of non-X damage, and 2 points of X1 damage? That would be relatively easy to port across to FC.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Nick Blank:

If 50/200 was done in this way, I would be more than okay with it. I really like this idea.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 05:18 pm: Edit

I am happy to see a lot of similar extrapolations of ideas. I too had written a brief this morning about a multi-firing phaser over the dreaded OL phasers it seems like a very natural progression and an increase in flexibility, not just power.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Alternative reason for the 50/200: X2 ships have Integrity Field Generators that are boxes and can be destroyed, maybe one per side. They take power (maybe SC-dependent, maybe per side) to activate, and halve the damage [hitting that side]. X2 weapons (all? some?) can be energised with an Integrity Field Disruptor that ignore this effect and tear through pre-X2 shields (leaky? double? etc). Mix and match until you find something tasty that works.

SVC SAYS THIS ONE IS A DEAD HORSE. BAD GAME DESIGN, NOT WORKABLE, NOT GOING THERE.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 05:53 pm: Edit

I like the integrity field idea.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Here is a thought. Make X2 phasers do more damage.

To keep things really simple, add 2 to the damage. When 0 is called for on the normal chart, add 2, then add 1 for the second 0.

SVC IS NOT AT ALL HAPPY WITH DOING NEW CHARTS BUT IF THERE IS MAJOR PLAYER SUPPORT THIS COULD BE RECONSIDERED ... MAYBE. BUT SVC REALLY PREFERS THE CURRENT CHART AND 50/200 RULE. THERE IS NO PRACTICABLE WAY TO DO BOTH.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 06:56 pm: Edit

For X2 I would like to see and additional empire specific technology come to fruition. Something that eats some this extra granted power but enhances in its own special way the ships for each group.

Over decades these empires have not merely been focused on war. What also brought them here was science, exploration, and trade. They have encountered new beings, new technologies, and taking this to the extreme new threats in the form of monsters (things we don’t understand are monsters). The tech we are already discussing like power, offensive maneuvering, defensive power had to also move into this advanced era.

Sure, sure we will get stronger power outputs, tougher shielding...

How about each group capture and evolve some of these monster technologies adapting it to their suite in the designs of these new X ships?

SVC THINKS THAT THIS IS A DANGEROUS IDEA THAT WILL DELAY THE PRODUCT AT LEAST A YEAR.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 07:13 pm: Edit

What about some adaptation of dampening fields (to power, movement, direct fire weapons, etc) like the monsters we have studied? How about a mind weapon injuring/disabling crew? We have faced clouds, dragons, snakes, rocks, machines of doom, and even entities that resemble ghosts or illness, what have we learned?

What about combining some of the unique technology with the old to create new fun things like launchable ESG or Stasis Field Anchors (IDK just spit-balling things here)?

I think someone mentioned enhanced hull skin/plating, but what about rotating shields of some sort (ala the Juggy), or an X-version of general shield reinforcement.

The Orions brought us some very cool and fun flexibility in their loadouts, and this the GW era toyed with by creating the HDW and later HWX, how was this concept incorporated into the X2 designs? I saw an idea about simplifying the flexibility to reduce SSDs (all for that). Can they be more flexible in design from the keel up?

All of this would draw from the extra power generated during the X2 era and strengthen concepts in maneuvering against your opponents on the same 32 –impulse tabletop.

SVC THINKS THAT THIS IS A DANGEROUS IDEA THAT WILL DELAY THE PRODUCT AT LEAST A YEAR. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THIS WAY I CAN PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD AND SOME DAY WHEN I SELL THE COMPANY OR DIE YOU CAN TALK TO THE NEW OWNERS. THIS MUCH NEW TECHNOLOGY WOULD TAKE YEARS TO DESIGN AND TEST. SVC IS JUST NOT GOING THERE.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 07:16 pm: Edit

I like the dialed-up defenses like an X-level shield status and some sort of defensive skin/field in addition to the X-level shielding so they can face lesser opponents or ramp it up for the likes of equivalent ships or Andro level uglies.

SVC INVITES YOU TO DISCUSS THIS WITH THE NEW OWNERS IN TWO OR THREE YEARS.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Monday, November 16, 2020 - 07:30 pm: Edit

I really like the idea of getting to the same balance point of 50/200 through systems instead of a flat denominator.
SVC NOTES THAT NO SUCH SOLUTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

Not only does it preserve the simulationist side of things that drew me into this game, it also opens up a ton of design space (maybe some empires have variant field generators? Or three across three arcs rather than two hemispherical ones?)
SVC SAYS OPENING UP A TON OF DESIGN SPACE AND THROWING IN A JUNK BASKET OF STUFF THAT HAS TO BE CREATED, WRITTEN, AND PLATTESTED PUSHES THE PUBLICATION DATE OF MODULE X2 TO 2026 OR 2027. IF YOU WANT TO GO THIS WAY THE PROJECT IS CANCELLED IMMEDIATELY.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 09:00 am: Edit

I like Nick Blank's complication for the 50/200 effect.

Each weapon requires a flat charge (half a point or half MC) paid to "supercharge" (or whatever term works) the weapon so it will do double damage to/through a shield that has not been also "supercharged". Obviously, only X2 (and maybe X1) ships can do this.

Each shield requires a flat charge (half a point or half MC) paid to "supercharge". Any weapon that hits that shield that has not also been "supercharged" will only do half damage. Obviously, only X2 (and maybe X1) ships can do this.

This definitely adds a new dynamic, particularly once damage is taken, as it means extremely tough choices will have to be made on what to supercharge and what doesn't need it. Plus, it gives non-X ships a chance, as long as they can last long enough to whittle the X-ship down. There comes a point where the X-ship goes from overpowering to being extremely vulnerable.

This is the first idea I have seen that makes the 50/200 idea interesting to me, as it goes from being "just there" to adding in tactical decisions in its use.

(Note: The above specifics are just examples expanding on what Nick said. I imagine the eventual result would look different from the above. It is just to further explain my understanding of the idea.)

So, eight more supporters are needed. (Shawn already supported it.)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 09:14 am: Edit

If it wasn't too much trouble (and apologies in advance if it is), I wanted to take a moment to explain my reasoning behind the proposed "warp gearshift" setup in more detail.

In terms of generated warp engine power, each successive generation of tactical warp drive has succeeded the previous one in that regard: from 8-box warp engines on the D3 to 12-box on the D4, and then from 15-box engines on the D6 to 20-box engines on the DX. So, it would seem logical for the would-be XBC to take a step further - say, to 24- or 25-box warp engines.

However, doing this (to me) throws up a few potential issues. Not only would this provide a significant hurdle for non-X2-ships to deal with (as, under the 50%/200% rule, each nacelle would take 48 or 50 Damage Points to destroy), I would not be keen to see X2-ship captains use all of that power either to starcastle or to fly their ships backwards at Speed 31. Although I freely admit that this might be the Federation Commander enthusiast in me talking, as that game system does more to discourage starcastling and retrograding.

So, the modified "warp gearshift" was my attempt to try and tackle these three issues at once.

In the version I suggested in a previous post, a pair of 16-box warp engines (each taking 32 Damage Points to destroy for non-X2-ships, a more attainable total perhaps) could provide a 100% output at speeds 0 to 15 (and keep the standard cost to fly backwards in SFB terms); a 125% output at Speeds 16 to 23 (and make it 125% more expensive to fly in reverse); and 150% output at Speeds 24 and up (while making it 150% costlier to move backwards).

Or, a more drastic proposal would be to give the ship a pair of 12-box warp engines (which would then take 24 Damage Points to destroy for non-X2-ships); set the warp output (and fly-backwards-cost) from Speeds 16 to 23 at 150%; and offer a 200% warp output (and retrograde surcharge) at Speeds 24 and up.

Now, if neither option would work out, fair enough. I'll be happy to go with whatever option ADB deems best.

-----

In addition, it's noted in (H5.5) that X2-batteries store five points of power each, and can hold warp power over multiple turns. If this concept is retained for Module X2 (which I would not disagree with), that would help make things interesting, particularly for the likes of the Feds (who could sit on some of that reserve warp power in case they needed a photon overload or few); but if the number of X2-battery boxes on a given ship was applied sparingly, the overall mount of reserve power need not necessarily be too much of a step up from the X1 era.

To tie things back to the "warp gearshift" concept above, one could compare either option with the Fed CX: with its pair of 20-box warp engines, 2-box "warp pack" in the saucer, 4 Impulse, and 5 X1-batteries (15 points of reserve warp overall).

An XCA with a pair of 16-box "warp gearshift" engines (each producing 20 points of power at Speeds 16 to 23, and 24 points at Speed 24 and above), no "warp pack" (perhaps it could be kept in reserve for a would-be "XCC"), 4 Impulse (I'm just guessing here), and, say, 4 X2-batteries (20 points of reserve warp overall).

On the other hand, an XCA with the more drastic "warp gearshift" option would have a pair of 12-box engines (each producing 18 points of power at Speeds 16 to 23, and 24 points at Speed 24 and above), 4 Impulse (again, just guessing here) and the same 4 X2-batteries.

Both options would have 33% more reserve power than the CX, but would only create more generated warp power at Speed 24 and up. So the onus would be to fly one's X2-ship fast... and, of course, to fly it facing forwards!

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 11:01 am: Edit

ADB has an exit strategy of only 2-3 years (2022-2023)? Oh snap...I retract my statements that would complicate the delivery of X2.

Time is of the essence then and SVC time cannot be wasted on the small distractions or items that would generate little to no income or value to a buyer (good business sense means they likely just drop those lines anyway).

Are you sure you and SPP don't want to submit your application for the rapid human cloning process? I think there is still time

For the most part I like what has been offered and SVC has agreed is at least on the table for X2.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Note that what I am saying around the 50/200 refinement isn't a new system, per se. It would operate like the sabot refit where a weapon (or defenses) gain a benefit with the application of additional power. There is no "box" associated with it and it can't be destroyed through damage. It is just a capability intrinsic to the ships themselves.

How the power is applied can be done in different ways. My initial description was for just a flat "power fee" whenever the weapon or shields are used. It could be more of a sliding scale, but I was avoiding that to make things simpler. So, when allocating power for the weapon, the owner decides to make it a normal charge or a super-charge depending on the power allocated. A half-point per weapon seems reasonable on the surface, but that could go up or down as required.

Shields are a little trickier. Doing a point per shield (or something like that) is simple enough, but that only doubles the number of shield boxes, not hull boxes. Each shield is individually powered, so maybe only shields #1 and #2 are powered and the rest operate normally.

For internal systems, there is a power cost based on movement class. The idea being that the power paid for the internal systems reflects tons of internal shielding that has to be powered to work. If not powered, then that internal shielding isn't active and the systems are damaged normally.

The end result of this are rules that will have to be playtested some to find the sweet spot for power requirements, but the rules are pretty simple and it helps use up some of the vast amounts of power the ships will have. This way the ships aren't necessarily zipping around at speed 32 with full overloads. Even with the increase in power decisions still have to be made. At the start of battle, the decisions are easy, but as damage is taken, those decisions become harder and harder.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Earthquake warning: I have a new idea how to do this. More in a few days.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 06:41 pm: Edit

However the 50/200 mechanic works, it needs some manner of technobabble. Which is why I think a powered system would work better than just making it that way by fiat. How that system should work can only be discovered by playtesting, and it won't be in isolation. But the story is important.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 07:00 pm: Edit

"OPTION TWO: The so-called 50/200 plan. Basically, take any SSD, making some minor tweeks, write "Second generation x Tech" across the top. When non-X shot at it, you did only half as much damage. When X2 shot at X0 and maybe X1 it did twice as much damage. This is the one I plan to go with."

Goodness, so you have practically decided - 32 point overloaded photons, double drone damage, 100 point plasma R's, etc. My phaser idea looks puny compared to this.


"OPTION THREE: Something really clever that nobody has thought of yet but which instantly catches fire with 100% of players who love Option Three tea-totally to death."

I take it that no idea has struck your fancy with this one.

What if the X2 has a weakness that is absolutely fatal and needs to be discovered (i.e. via scientific information). Perhaps the lowly probe merely needs to hit the X2 to completely disable it?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, November 17, 2020 - 08:10 pm: Edit

How about we give Steve a chance to explain his new idea ... ?